of riverside, california. at a 30 a.m., lara brown on her book "jockeying for the u.s. presidency." we will conclude with alan abramowitz from emory university. "washington journal" is next. host: michael joseph grosz of the "vanity fair" has a 10,000 work. -- a 10,000 words essay about sarah palin. there are the numbers on the screen. she gives a speech and the media write about it. there is a fascination in this

country with sarah palin and we want to find out what it is. you can also send us a tweet and e-mail. here is the cover story from vanity fair "sarah palin, the sound and fury."

that is the lead in the michael joseph gross story. sarah palin's connection with her audience is complete. people admirer are convinced she is just like them and this conviction seems to satisfy their curiosity about the objective facts of her life.

getttle bit more before we to your calls.

palance divisive way of stating things. i mean, she has a negative thing to say about everything, everything. and she makes up things as she goes. could you imagine her of running a country with 300 million people in it? host: dorothy, when sarah palin

talks, to you read the article or watch the news? caller: i watch the news constantly. i watch you every morning. i have watched her and seen her comments. i can give you one instance when i did not understand. i remember when rahm emanuel made a statement and he called -- are not sure what he said, but he said someone was acting retarded. we both have freedom of speech, but she can come out and say negative things about people, or she was ok with a lady calling "n" word and the inwar yet that is freedom of speech. host: you think sarah palin is ok with using that word? caller: she did not find fault

with that lady, but she found fault with rahm emanuel. host: john, next caller, what you think the fascination is with sarah palin? caller: i think the side effect that she is telegenic, she invites people that who are nubiles topolitical new bile' take part in the issues. she is on the other side of the aisle and i am, but i think that is essentially what it is. host: lake geneva, wisconsin, tom on the republican line, good morning.

caller: your -- why are you putting and are " fourth that is not sourced by sarah palin, first of all. are you trying to generate ratings? host: what is your fascination with sarah palin? caller: i do not have any fascination. she's just a politician. wait untilon't you you have a cop -- a topic you have a common bond. -- a topic you have a comment on.

he goes on to write --

california on the democrats line, what is the fascination with the sarah palin? caller: i think it is the divisiveness that comes out of her, and really, an uneducated woman who is in everybody's business and always criticizing president obama, and yet, she could not even raised a daughter

without being an unwed mother. i raised five girls. where does this ignorant woman stand in life, with the exception of divisiveness in america? host: k, republican, mansfield, ohio, hello. ohio, hello. caller: i just wonder if this so-called writer go into obama's background. i have nothing against him except that i'm sure he has things in his background that he must not have checked, or whatever. sometimes they depend on the people that surround them to do that. host: let's stay focused on sarah palin. what is your fascination with her? caller: i really think that sometimes she gets it right. i know i have been called an

educated voter, but believe me, i am a very educated voter. i think that she speaks mostly for the people in the country that are mostly uneducated. host: thank you for calling in.

back to your calls on sarah palin. hank in grosse pointe, michigan, go ahead. caller: i am not fascinated by sarah palin. i am mystified by her. i do not know how anybody could run on the record that she had as governor of alaska in the short time frame that she held the job. she was charged with all kinds of unethical acts and left the alaskan people with thousands of dollars in fines for unethical behavior. you have to run on your record. you have to judge people on

their records. and her record to me is a hate monger and a racist. host: audrey, portsmouth, new hampshire, democrat. caller: peter, i have not spoken to you since i told you about the chinese food on christmas, remember? host: chinese food on christmas? caller: well, i'm jewish. host: ok. [laughter] caller: years ago, i do not think we would be discussing someone like sarah palin. anyone can posed some the on the internet and i think that has changed the whole voting process. i'm really concerned about the future of this country and the people that they are letting influence them. host: but audrey, sarah palin, you have got to admit, she is a phenomenon. caller: i think she has a shrill

voice and after i speak to you i'm going to put house and garden on. host: because you do not want to hear anymore about her? caller: no. host: two things very quickly -- are you ready for a girl to come visit new hampshire? caller: -- are you ready for hurricane earl to come visit new hampshire? caller: i'm not worried about burlakoearl. host: and are you ready for the primary? caller: i have a feeling about it and i have a feeling is going to be sarah palin and glen beck. i think i will crawl into a whole. host: all right, andrea, good to talk to you.

-- audrey, good to talk to you. harry on the independent line. caller: the reason people like sarah palin is because she tells the truth. this guy here that the talk to anyone. -- did not talk to anyone. host: there are a lot of unnamed sources and conjectures in this article if you want to read the article for yourself, i will tell you, harry, it is on our web page at c-span.org. you can read the full article for yourself. go ahead with your comment. caller: i think some of the stations like eckman -- msnbc. i have watched some or all they

talked about was her service and then they attacked her. she is in the polls right now at 60% or 70% or higher are all against what is going on in this country. i think the democrats are scared now. you can see it in their faces like with msnbc, cnn. like with msnbc, cnn. the job you guys did on that was phenomenal. i like it. they should drop three or 4 million people. -- they should draw three or 4 million people. you are even in balance.

-- and balanced. host: here is a tweet. a little bit more from the "vanity fair" article by michael joseph gross.

the next call comes from steve in it ridgway, pa. on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, peter. thanks for taking my call. i love the way you handle people that get off topic, so i will stay on topic. the fascination with sarah palin is, i think, the fear of people who hate her. and i think "kate" is the term. -- "8hate" is the term. in that last article that you read, it could have almost been

about hillary clinton when she was running. but anyway, her role is to raise money in to help people campaign. campaign. somebody made a comment about her and lembeck being on a ticket. that is just ridiculous. i've got to go to work. host: what kind of sales you do? caller: i worked in sales for a chemical company. host: house business? -- how is business? caller: we have a good management team and it is good. host: would you vote for sarah palin? caller: probably not. host: did you vote for barack obama? caller: no, i did not.

host: you voted for john mccain and sarah palin? caller: yes, i did. host: yellow springs, ohio, shonda. caller: i am not fascinated by sarah palin. how she isated with ou gearing up to the people who are not educated with what is going on with america. she is appealing to the lower diameter of american people. if we are in crisis here and all she is doing is dividing america accurate -- we are in crisis here and all she is doing is dividing america. she is taking the lower steps of what america can be.

it is unbelievable. fascinated. i just cannot believe that someone can come out and say half the things she says and get away with it, and no one challenges her beliefs. host: winter park, fla., linda, republican. caller: first, one of the earlier call survey, he said his name was shane and every day when he calls it is a different name. host: was he from lake geneva wisconsin? no, he was from gross point, mich.. caller: no, he calls in every day. i know it is hard because he calls from a different place and a different name, but i recognize his voice and i do not understand why you all can recognize his voice. -- cannot recognize his voice.

host: we appreciate that. what is your fascination with sarah palin? caller: well, i'm not fascinated, but i think she is a strong woman and i think that is what turned so many people off. host: you recognize that the country is fascinated with her politically? caller: yes, but unfortunately, it is mostly to bash her. so many people that have called in today accused her of being divisive and calling names, but they call her uneducated and speaking to lower level people in the united states and being hateful, and they are doing and of what they are accusing her of doing. i do admire her. i think her values represent so many of the values of american women and men today. i think the values of god and

country -- host: would you vote for her for president? caller: i have not made my mind up yet. i want to see who the candidates will be. but on the "vanity fair" article, i saw him on at msnbc, i think, and my opinion was that he had a bias against her. i think he wanted to bash her. host: a little bit more of the michael gross article, which is available at vanityfair.com.

next call, new york city, might become an independent line, you are on the air. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: there are always attacking this lady. i'm more fascinated by the levels people will drop to to attack her. people are scared because she is anti-abortion, you know, she cooks for her family. i mean, just the stuff she comes up with. some guy followed her around for five months and that is all he can get, that she has a temper? there must be something they're scared of with this woman and i

wish her well. host: would you vote for her? caller: maybe not against ron paul, but why not? host: paul, a democrat, ky. caller: number one, i think the woman is attractive. you know how cable news dominates everything, and when you look at the other politicians, they are so robotic and stale. but i tell you what i really think, in the middle class people in the country are so squeezed and stressed and she represents middle-class people. the democratic party, i thought hillary clinton was a law, but obama 1. -- was a lock, but obama won.

i think the woman really represents a lot of frustrated middle-class people. host: there is another new book, following a lot of new books coming out, including tony blair's, which is getting a lot of play. but here is another book by steve ratner, the auto bailout czar for the obama administration. this is in the post in one of the first detailed insider counts by a member of obama's team.

that is in the "washington post" this morning. camden, missouri, republican line. it's what you think this

nation's fascination with sarah palin is? caller: the article you just read it shows that i guess these guys in politics can obviate well either. i called 34 days ago about -- cannot behave well either. i called 34 days ago about immigration. immigration. i think sarah palin scare democrats to death when she came out on stage with mccain because she is attractive. she has worked all her life. she ran a state. she has a family. she represent our values and she scares them to death. they have been dogging this woman to bring up anything they can against her. she is not racist. we tea party people are not racists. but it gets so much press. we are just not. and one of our best president, truman, was a haberdasher.

he was in the service and then became one of our best president. now we have bill clinton, who was not real good in office. messing around with young girls. and i guess hillary clinton was a spitfire. and now we have a person who is president who was a community organizer and he is running this country like it is his own personal billion dollars piggy bank. host: we are going to leave it there. bond rate in new orleans on the democrats line from one to you think that this nation is fascinated with sarah palin? caller: no, i think the media is more than anyone else. host: every time she makes a speech, the thousands come out, people gather around her, blog about her. it is not just the media.

caller: i guess you could say that, but i still think it is more of a media-driven thing. as she sits behind her desk we team and everything. if she is probably not even doing that. she just comes across to me as an empty vessel. how and i believe the article in "vanity fair" about her because i think it is true. the most important things about her are what we do not see and to the article is probably accurate. she may come across as photogenic and beautiful and middle class, " what middle- class person do you know that just made $1 million off of a book? host: she has another book coming out in november, by the way. here is sarah palin's response. this is from last night.

impotence, limp and douglas -- that is how she wrote -- and gutless is how she refers to the media. good morning in mississippi. caller: i think she comes across as a smart hawks person. -- as a smart person. thetired of seeing government spending my money.

the nation is in a terrible situation renner because the economy is awful. there are so many layoffs. and our president is having a field day with spending our money. host: we are going to leave it there. a couple more articles for you and a little bit more from a denard vanity fair." we will continue to take your call before we move on to the fiscal health of our cities.

and this is in the "washington post" on the op-ed page. charles krauthammer, first of all, our destructive and member in cheatham and many have concerns about obama withdrawing from afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering the war effort. it stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy. if you want to read more, charles krauthammer, in the "washington post." also in the "washington post" -- here is a little bit.

that is eugene robinson this morning in the "washington post." harper, kan., randall on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i am fascinated by sarah palin. i think is better to be divided in truth then united in error. she says she loves israel. she is for free speech. she is against the socialist health care, and i think that is part of the fascination with sarah palin.

i believe that a lot of people like her also because she is an independent woman. i hear a lot of people say she is beautiful. that is neither here nor there. she is unmarried woman. i think we should respect her. but i think she has a good agenda. i hope her heart is true. a lot of people say she is this or that. we scrutinize everybody and we put them on a pedestal and we expect our leaders, including the president, to be this godlike person and then we cut them down. host: a regular tweeter on the "washington journal" site -- newport, ky, michelle, a democrat. caller: good morning, peter. it is nice to talk to you.

you are my favorite moderator on c-span. host: you say that to everyone. caller: i do not. i trust me. i saw this author interviewed and when he set out to do this interview, i think he thought he was going to do a good interview. i think he might have been a supporter of hers. for what he said, he was really shocked and dismayed and he said he really reported a story that he did not want to report and did not ever think he would report. people might want to look into his background a little more. also, i think sarah palin has catnip for the 24/7 media cycle and she does not represent a working-class american person like me. she quit her governorship. she has made $13 million. she is a self-proclaimed -- self promoter.

host: that is being reported that she made $13 million. caller: we can all google added. i think she got $6 million or $7 million just for signing her book. for all of the speeches and things, that can have up. and let's not quibble, but she has made some good money. i do not deny her that, but for her to turn around and say, we must take our country back, i think she is a self promoter. i think we have so many major issues in this country. i usually turn it off when i see that we have another little statement from sarah palin for the day. it is unappealing. you have a wonderful life labor day and i will talk to you in a month or so. host: we will see you then. , talk to you then. bonnie in colombia. caller: sarah palin lives in the

same town as my daughter and grandchildren and they went to school with her children. i am 73 years old. she is a person just like we are. she has the ability and she ran at stake fantastically. she got out because she was having to spend the people's money to defend all of these things, these ethical or whatever you want to call them toward her. she is a person that speaks her mind. she is a person that god is iraq. -- is her rock. i agree that we have gotten away from our christian values and until we get back to those and to what our founding fathers to what our founding fathers built this country on, less government and more states rights, we're going down the wrong road. i am not fascinated by sarah

palin. i just know that she is a woman of her word. the far left, really, is afraid of her and they're also afraid of the christian movement that has started. christians are waking up and this will be the second greatest awakening. if we are getting back to god and country. host: this article in the "vanity fair" does talk about her appeal to evangelical christians at length. here is a little bit more from the article.

and a little bit more from this article, when michael joseph gross goes up to wasilla, this is what he writes." -- what he writes.

new hampshire, morton, independent line. caller: i called to support

sarah palin because history will show the state of alaska is now, i believe, the most prosperous state in the union and is because of her as governor. she took on big oil. she cleaned out some corrupt politicians. allowt time in the 1970's us to have the highest per- capita tax rate in all of the states. today, it has the lowest. as a matter of fact, residents actually get checks every year, significant checks this past year. a young lady that i know, a resident, got $3,200, which is heard dividend -- her dividend because of what sarah palin did. she has achieved miracles in

alaska. host: a little bit more from the "vanity fair" article.

that is part of the "vanity fair" article. you can read it online at c- span.org, in case you want to read the whole thing. a couple more articles that you

might find interesting, survey employed finds 25% lost a job during recession. two editorials in the " wall street journal" this morning.

tony barri -- tony blair's put it is just out and there is a lot been written about it. they hope to get an event in london in the next week or so and have that on the air. we will keep you informed.

one more editorial from the (wall street journal." both from the "wall street journal." all right, republican in clearwater, fla., what is the country's fascination with sarah palin? caller: the fascination with the sarah palin is she is the mrs. smith goes to washington we have all been waiting for. i mean, when you take into dollars trillion in revenues, you do not spend $3.5 trillion,

running up $1.5 trillion in debt. she speaks common-sense, which i'm sure you and everybody listening right now, if you are paid $100 per week, you are not going to spend $1,000. going to spend $1,000. my problem with your reading that article -- i have not actually read the article, but i have heard all about it and i've been listening to you read segments of it. you would think she is a mafia so keen -- she is some mafioso king and that people won't comment because they are afraid that they might get back. people are saying this and that, but not going to put my name on that because sarah palin might come back and get you. dyncorp if you disagree with her, why would you put your name

on any of these comments -- if you disagree with her, why would you put your name on any of these comments you have been reading all morning. it is like john gotti. i have to be anonymous or i'm going to get whacked. i just do not get that. host: here is a tweet. our twitter followers often continuing conversation after we have left it. finally, from the "financial times" in case you're interested.

and this from the "new york times" -- in case you are interested, john burns in the "new york times" this morning." -- this morning. all right, we are going to be turning our attention to the fiscal health of cities. the mayor of california league of cities is up next.

>> search the term "mideast peace" online at the c-span video library and you'll get more than a thousand transcripts and videos. interviews, panels and forms, all the way up to this week's white house middle east peace talks. all free, on-line, it is washington and the world your way. >> there is nothing about finance that is like rocket science. this is part of the most frustrating thing for me. you think about ponzi schemes and the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn about that they are not smart enough to understand how that is not -- is going to be invested. >> meredith whitney was one of

the first to predict losses for citigroup. she's our guest sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the importance of historical study sunday with pulitzer prize winner and historian gordon wood. live for three hours with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span [applause] -- at noon eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to introduce you to ronald loveridge. he is a democrat and also president of the national league of cities. city,start with your own a population of a little over 300,000, correct? caller: right, in southern california.

host: what is the fiscal health of your city? do you have a budget deficit? caller: there is a context. there is about 14% unemployment, which has been steady for the past couple of years. it has been up and down a little bit, but essentially 14% unemployment. we're also one of the places for foreclosures. we were a hot house in the housing market and when the economy collapsed, foreclosures to place. the city -- took place. the city itself is doing ok. we are doing some cuts and having to trim and so forth, but in some ways, the city has never looked better. we just finished a major capital improvement program called renaissance. there are different stories.

my next-door neighbor city has just passed a budget that has laid off 27 police officers and seven firefighters. where the pain is, it varies so much, but the pain is real. host: what is riverside's budget every year doxepin general caller: -- every years? caller: it is about $190 billion. billion. so often when cuts come, they from the first one-third. when you move to replace we're cutting safety, that shows the seriousness of this fiscal crisis. host: looking at the articles

this morning, harrisburg, pa. expects to miss a bond payment, potentially going into bankruptcy. what does that mean has a mayor? if you have a bond payment to make and you were going to miss it, what would that mean? caller: i read the story and someone pointed out, you do not want to go into bankruptcy. it attacks your city in a way that makes it difficult to compete for business, for residents. and people remember if your city went bankrupt. very few cities in the u.s. have actually chose an bankert to because in terms of public policy is not the place you want to end up -- chose bankruptcy because it is in terms of public policy, it is not the place you want to end up. host: but what if it did? caller: they made a very bad choice about some kind of trash

innovation that they thought would work for them. if you look across the country, historically, cities have paid their bonds back. host: do you have to have a balanced budget in riverside? caller: cities across the country after having a balanced budget. we certainly do. california passes budgets that on the surface, at least, our balance. but cities have to pass balanced budgets. host: do you have to borrow money? caller: you can have debt. if we borrow money for a variety of projects, can you have to have smart choices behind the revenue borrowing. host: a lot of the cities are

sitting down city services. the city of seattle is shutting down libraries for a week. some are shutting off the street fight. the numbers are on -- street lights. the numbers are on the screen. go ahead and start calling in right now. mayor loveridge, when foreclosures started happening, what was the break in riverside and how did that affect your revenue streams? caller: the most damning thing about foreclosures is the impact they have on neighborhoods and if you are not careful, it has a contagion effect of abandoned homes. we are in older city -- an older city and particularly cities to the east of us grew quite rapidly. you can see the impact of foreclosures. but foreclosures for us mean

there has been no construction going on. and the whole set of related financial services. that is what has put a great deal of difficulty and stress on the economy. host: the problems that the state of california are facing, does that affect you? caller: there is enormous caller: there is enormous uncertainty over what the state is going to do. california faces -- it is and $80 billion budget and a $20 billion shortfall. that is one out of every $4. now in september, without a budget, many people think we will not have one until after the election. caller: home -- host: how much of your revenue comes from the state or federal sources? caller: very little comes from

the state. cities have organized what we called proposition 22 to keep the state from taking more of our money. essentially, they are keeping more than they return. and federal dollars, stimulus has been in some ways helpful, but it has been modest help. what is interesting is the estimate that cities receive about 5% of the funds from the federal government. it is the lowest -- if you look to the top 50 countries in the world, 5% is probably the lowest of any of the 50 countries. the federal government, particularly since revenue sharing and went away when reagan became president, there is not a lot of return of federal dollars to cities host: the majority -- a federal dollars to cities. host: the majority of your money comes from property taxes.

caller: and sales taxes, roughly 9%. host: and how much of that do you get? >> one-half of 1%. host: so, it matters if people shop. caller: that is a revenue that you can control and you are very conscious of your sales tax choices. . . .

you -- every city i think is ransacking every all terntive they can think. we can't print money. they know they have a balance they have to reach. so we do it. host: have you made any cuts in services? guest: oh, i think we used to have a work force of 2500. it's now more in the range of 2100. 2,000. 2100. we've modified some hours on libraries. but for various reasons, we sort of anticipated and prepared, and narrowed and reduced our own kind of workforce. >> mayor ronald loveridge from

riverside. we'll start taking your calls. put them up on the screen. especially if your city is having trouble. we want to hear from you. owings mills shirley on our democrats line. thank you. caller: i was wondering as a democrat, if the republicans get back in, i think they are just going to cut everything to the bone. you said the federal government only gives 5%. but 5% is a big help. and most states have to balance the budget. which means we're going to have even more layoffs. host: mayor? guest: really an important question. with the cities as emphasized as the need for support of local governments. we call it local jobs for america act. but the point is that -- you made i think is the correct

one. we do not -- given -- shifting an emphasize from -- we believe that employment and services are critical to the future of quality of life, which happens in cities. but if you focus on the deficit, that means less money, and i think for us, it means less money for cities, less money for services. less money for employees, which i think has real consequences for where we as americans work, play and work. -- live, play and work. host: you're on with ron loveridge. caller: hi, ron. my question is about what, if any advice, your organization is giving to the mayors of those cities where unfunded pension obligations are a real burden? in san diego i cannot figure out why we're not bankrupt

given we have over a billion dollars in unfunded pension obligations an i know there are similar out of control pension obligations for civil serve nts making 35% more than the non-government civilians. host: dan, has san diego made cuts in services? caller: they have made demuts services. and cuts in employment. to calculate directly in riverside it was about 20%. i don't know what the percentage is in san diego. i am glad i live in the contiguous suburb of san diego where the fiscal are much more taken care of. guest: the question, i think really makes an important plight. pensions and reform of pensions now in the center ring. if you run up the numbers. they are not sustainable. they have to change. i think one city in san diego is one of the first in california to adopt a kind of

two-tier system. but you're going to see reform take place at the state level, and increase not only in california cities, but really across the country. you can't sustain these type of pension numbers over time. they would just cannibalize the budgets and make choices of balancing the budget untenable. host: next call comes from dallas. ericka. ericka. hi. caller: hi. i'm a first-time caller. thank you for letting me get through. i just wanted to say that i do live in dallas, and i'm not aware of any sort of major budget cuts or problems with closing down libraries for a whole week or anything like that, but i wanted to make a comment about the power of, you know, sporting events. last year we had the nba all-star game here that brought in about half a billion dollars in about half a billion dollars in rev knew for the city, and

then this february i believe we're going to have the super bowl here in dallas, so i think that's really going to help our city out in terms of rev knew and getting jobs. and i guess the persons, the mayor could i guess speak about the importance of events such as those? host: thank you ericka, and welcome to the "washington journal." guest: i don't want the peak about dallas, but they have had to make cuts but cities also compete for events. they compete for business. and part of the -- as you look across the landscape, the cities in the united states, there is some winners, and there is some loseers in this game of competition. dallas is -- i think dallas, its art, its tra ductry is upward and the kind of events she described helps sustain

that momentum. host: mayor, do events like a super bowl or a convention bring a lot of ref knew to a city? guest: well, it's obviously bringing the one-time rev knew, and they do help, particularly the private sector. buts the no magic cure over time for the kind of rev knews that cities need to -- for basic services. we're not really talking about the services on the margins. police and fair to and public works, and things that make a city a good place to live. host: earlier caller, the one from san diego talked about living in a suburb. are suburbs dangerous to a core city like riverside? maybe dangerous is the wrong word. but harmful? guest: we used to divide the world from central city suburbs. in terms of what's happening to both the demographics and in

city revenues, it's just not as true anymore. suburbs are increasingly diverse places to live. what they call un-tier suburbs. i think we're increasingly moving away from talking about city suburbs to talking about metropolitan regions and what's happening in metropolitan regions. host: there was a city that it was reported the city manager was making a huge amount of money. $800,000-plus, and the city was nearly bankrupt? is that unusual? [laughter] guest: well, it was outrageous. it was extraordinary. and it was almost beyond comprehension. he was making $800,000. but they ran a total compensation package which was $1.5 million. the city only has a general

fund budget of $15 million. so it was 1/10 of the budget. host: how did that happen? were the citizens not paying attention? guest: it's a city of 37,000 very poor, mostly hispanic, no particular media coverage or newspaper. [inaudible] were also making $100,000 a year in many ways a fictitious service on supposed different kinds of committees and authorities. they also gave loans to people, added up loans to $1.5 million to people in the administration. bell is almost an example of where you don't have an active citizenry. you don't have an active media or participation. it's sort of out of sight and out of mind. the community is now engaged in

the "l.a. times" writing about a story every other day, so we, in southern california, and as a nation will know a great deal about what took place at bell. but it was outrageous. it was wrong. and people in cities just shook their heads with the numbers. they just didn't make any sense. >> we have this tweet from flora fell toya. the u.s. needs to promote an economic model that relies less on consumer spending, otherwise ever-increasing sales, excise, vat, etc. >> well, our economy in many ways is driven by consumers. guest: and the decisions and choices that they make. there's a new book out the best

of the academics writing about cities and talks about the great reset. that is 1870 and 1930, and now the great recession, life is going to be different in terms of settlement choices and transportation choices and lifestyle choices. and i think this frame is really an important kind of really an important kind of concept. we're not going to go back to where we were before. our houses are not going to provide us the kind of choices, and we're moving into something new and different. and it's a little hard to know exactly what form or pattern. but you're not going to see the future through a rearview mirror any longer. host: another californiain' calling in from los angeles. joe? hi. caller: hi. i have a point i want to make. for example, in the obama stimulus package, they set aside billions to -- teachers and we saw state workers' jobs.

i just wonder if you can tell us how lodgalical and unfair this is that all the money is being set aaside for state workers where private sector jobs, they do nothing to help them. i'm just wondering, could you say people like you come across and it's such an important thing to keep teacher and police jobs. you notice that how private sector work is not [inaudible] guest: i think that there's sort of general agreement that private sector has to be the source and strength of this recovery in the nation and in cities. but on the particular question of cities -- if a city is not safe. if the scene is not safe,s the damning for people to live there. to make choices to live there.

to do business there. so public safety is almost the initial requirement for a good city. thus the attention to try to retain police officers. retain police officers. you do not want to live in a city which you feel, and others judge, as being unsafe. 40eu7 another city in san carlos has voted to dissolve its police force and begin to outsource its job of law enforcement to the san mateo county sheriff's office. guest: well, a large number of smaller cities have chosen to do that. some for the scale of the economy to ajust cost to their general fund. it doesn't mean it's safety. in this case they look to the county sheriff to provide those services. host: how does riverside pay

for education? guest: well, that's a complicated business. the cities in california have nothing to do with the education system. it's quite separate. so the state almost entirely funds the education system. and california, because of its initiatives, is sort of boxed into different kinds of revenues. but the state funds, local school districts. host: jacksonville, florida, dave on our line. thank you. thank you. caller: thank you. mr. mayor, i think your answers make a lot of sense. and i haven't heard you mention economic development. we have, here in jacksonville, really quite a robust effort really quite a robust effort and an entire agency devoted to economic development. jacksonville economic commission. and we get some matching funds from the state, which appear to

be very generous at a rate of four-to-one, matching our local dollars here. given the fact that we are really in a tough economic situation, do you think economic development has really developed our economy? and how do you benefit or maybe even not helped with this kind of program? guest: for most cities, their central focus now is really on economic development. on jobs. on recovery. i mean, services are good. but unless there is prosperity, and unless there are revenues, which means, unless the city is doing well, the cities are not going to succeed. so our first priority is really -- to borrow an expression out -- to borrow an expression out of the first part of the clinton campaign -- it's really the economy stupid.

cities are focused on how to keep, encourage and retain the businesses -- the business community. host: mayor loveridge, when you hear talk of extending tax cuts in congress, does that matter to you? as a mayor? guest: well, i mean, what matters to us, i think, is what kind of support there is for cities. so we worry less about what the particular judgments are in congress. i think and more on how it connects with cities. but it's -- if you've -- at some point, if you keep cutting taxes, you obviously have less revenue to distribute. i think there's interesting talk about looking at some kind of revenue-sharing. but if you accept -- there's a

premise that the economic development, quality of life in experienced cities. accept that premise. the federal government needs to be a part of it. host: now you've been mayor of riverside since 1994? guest: 17 years. host: are you up for election at any point? guest: in 2 1/2 years it will be 30 years of public service -- 34 years of public service. host: are you retiring after that? guest: i am. i've taught at riverside. ly go back. host: have you had to learn how to be a politician? [laughter] guest: well, what is interesting is in local politics, in many ways it's face-to-face politics. and first time i ran for office. i knocked on counted 4,000 doors. i think that was about as good

a kind of training as you can have. you heard about pain. you heard about families, about their caring about a place, heard their aspirations. i was different at the end of my first campaign because of listening to people. and jimmy carter had a comment once made that said we need a government as good as the american people. and i thought that was -- i kind of smiled when i heard it. but when i campaigned and knocked on doors, that had a real meaning to me that some how government needed to represent the hopes and aspirations and lives of people. host: next call for marron loveridge of riverside california comes from new hampshire. russell. hi. caller: hi. i enjoyed listening to the i enjoyed listening to the mayor. i wish he were here. but in the end case, i wanted

to make a point. in new hampshire, the state legislatures, they get a stipend of $200. and they run for office and so forth. however, in our neighbor state, massachusetts, the average salary for a state legislature there is about $80,000-plus. they don't get -- you know, they wouldn't settle for $200. in any case, -- and the amount 06 corruption in one state or another. i don't want to get into too much. but i think money breeds corruption. also, i live in nassau, and because i'm a veteran, they give me $400 every year off my property tax. i think that's kind of nice. because i served in the korean war. host: any comment, mayor loveridge?

guest: well, thank you for your service in the korean war. as i understand, new hampshire i think has the largest number of state legislatures, if my memory -- something like 400. host: million. guest: ha. they have a lot of members. and most states pay the same kind of number that he identified for massachusetts. there's a real tension now between states and cities. because the states -- one time the magazine called it bankrupt. they continue to look for funds wherever they can find them, so instead of sending money back instead of sending money back to cities, they are taking revenues. so increasingly there's a stress between state and city. i was in florida at the state conference, and one of the major expressions was what happens in tallahassee should

stay in tallahassee. it was a major, major kind of a applause line. but it reflect as real tension now, between cities and states. and obama chose to have much of the stimulus go through states. outsource, similar through states. i understand 50 states and 19,000 cities and towns. but cities climate do not have the kind of projects or attention that particularly you have increasing conflict with the state. host: mayor loveridge, what was your last letter to governor schwarzenegger about on an issue of city business? guest: well, we have a lot of traditional things. but sat down with the governor a few weeks ago. we were really talking about two things.

one is about a measure the cities have. but also his major -- environmental law, ab 32, which is also on the ballot this november. host: and what does that do? how would it affect you? what was your lobbying campaign? guest: well, it's -- i guess -- 22 means to keep the state from taking money from cities. we're trying to put up kind of a fair to wall. this is city revenue, state revenue. you make your choices. but we should have our own money to make our own choices money to make our own choices with. on two others which are really ab 32 and sb 75. we were really trying to talk about our partnership with the governor. there is considerable conflict on ab 32. and in some ways i think it's going to be a major vote not only in california, but a

statement to the entire country. this is the greenhouse gas climate change measure. and it's, again, up for vote in november. host: do you support it? guest: i support ab 32 very strongly. i'm opposed to what's on the ballot. i should say i'm also on the resources board, which is implementing ab 32. quite apart from that. we're at a time where we need to make statements about new energy, new ecological forms. think i that's where we need to go and where california needs to go. host: what was your last communication or lobbying campaign towards him or her? guest: riverside is really -- the inner part seems to be more

republican than democrat. my last direct conversation with ken was to ask him to support local jobs for america act but he explained that's not what republicans are doing this session. and so we were trying to line up support for it. but 165 dentals and no republicans. -- 165 democrats, and no republicans. but what is interesting about cities. most, if not all cities in the united states. we're non-partisan. we're not really democrats or republicans. you don't divide the world that way. you don't take -- make decisions on what is your party's decision. there's no democratic or republican way to fix potholes. but it's really beyond that. you're looking at common questions. public safety. economic development.

questions of parks and services. these are not republican or democratic issues. they are issues of what is a good city. host: chuck on ocean view, republican line, thank you for holding on. you're on with mayor loveridge. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: and i've heard you in california, and i realize california is unique not only because of all the social programs and environmental programs and stuff, and you're also losing a lot of businesses because of the tax structure and the amount of income it stakes to run that state of 23 million people in the state of california? guest: we're now close to 39. caller: then i got some misinformation. but anyway, my point being that i see the cities, states, counties throughout the whole country, some are managed more

efficiently. some have more revenues, some have more opportunities for revenues. you mentioned revenue comes from the 1% the state gives you and property taxes. to me, we're talking about tax increases and tax cuts, how does it assist you? well, it seems to me that you as a mayor, and i'm a business man for 35 years. i know how to manage a company i know how to manage a company and stuff like that, that those are areas that the more money your taxpayers have in your pocket, they are able to pay their realize taxes and buy more goods and services within your city, and that way you will get more direct revenue pr that sales tax. it's not just going to the state, and it's not just paying for more public services and stuff like that, that maybe they don't need. and i think maybe the states and cities need to look at being more efficient. because i work with government agencies. every year they have a budget and every year they are looking to see how they can increase their budget and add more

people and this and that. but a whole not is not put into the efficient as i of the system. host: mayor loveridge? guest: in california the budget circuses faces the state. it's a -- the budget circumstance faces the state. i think almost every city in this country is engaged in sub traction and contraction. traction and contraction. revenues are down. and the point you made is if people have more money to spend, it's better for cities. i think that's correct. but the very -- i mean, this is really a crisis, a revenue crisis for cities across the country. all cities are reducing dramatically the kind of services they are providing. and yet i don't see this as simply cuts at the boundaries.

it cuts at the very core of life you and i experience. host: johnathan, independent line from arizona. caller: hello, mayor loveridge. host: please go ahead. caller: yes. i was a resident in riverside for many years. however, we chose to fleeve 1999, because your police chief , seoully, by himself, took away all the con sealed carry permits from our citizen and the only ones left with them were 28 political career politicians. we felt that the city was getting more and more problem atic to us as a small business owner and homeowner with a family. more street crime. more street crime. you let the gangs run at leisure, and you were mayor for 17 years while we were there and didn't do anything to stop one man from causing us to be so concerned about our personal

safety that we actually picked up, sold our house and left the state. we now live in arizona, where things are much better in terms of personal protection. so while you discuss a lot about -- bases of money and economy and jobs, you haven't done very much during your career for personal protection. career for personal protection. host: mayor loveridge? guest: well, i take real pride in the decline and crime in the city of riverside, and a lot of circumstances are responsible. we just hired a new police chief. sergio diaz. and putting together an excellent team. host: are gangs a problem in riverside? guest: gangs are a problem in any kind of urban areas. there are less problems now than there were before, an area

that used to be the most concerned about gangs. we were just commenting about how comfortable you are driving through, going to the parks, through, going to the parks, the tension that was once there is not there now. and i mean, doesn't mean that there isn't still a few incidents of gang activity. but it has significantly declined. i would judge, in the last 10 years. years. host: was that gentleman correct in talking about the con sealed weapons permit in riverside was taken away in 1999? marv: well, i'm not sure exactly what standards the chief has and how it differs from other chief ins other cities. i surmise there's al reluctant tans of police chiefs to have con sealed weapons in general. but i don't know what the particular patterns are. host: mayor loveridge. mayor of riverside, california, president of the league of

cities and c-span is covering several of their events. you can go to c-span.org and find out what we are covering in you're interesting in watching it. thank you for being on the "washington journal." "washington journal." guest: thank you. host: an 1 1/2 hours to go but first this news update from c-span radio. >> and at 8: 2 in washington, here are 1078 of the headlines. parts of virginia are starting to feel -- the category two storm churned past north carolina's outer banks. officials say they'll be assessing the damages this morning. but forecasters say earl produced little storm surge and minor flooding. the jobless rate is expected to increase to .6% from 9.5%. that would be the first rise

since april. bp says so far its spent $8 million responding to the oil spill cleanup. $399 million paid to settle hundreds of thousands of claims from businesses andors act affected by the 13il8. and seeing evidence that the -- today secretary gates visited troops who are in the thick of fighting in that taliban strong hold, and finally a government official says a scientist has official says a scientist has been detained in miami after screeners found a metal canister in his luggage that looked like a pipe bomb. the f.b.i. and miami-dade police are interviewing the 70-year-old man. no explosives have been found. four of miami international airports and concourses were evacuated thursday night. but the airport fully re-opened just after 4:00 a.m. this

morning. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> tonight, book tv prime time looks to the stars. planetarium director neal describes death by black hole and other cosmic quandary. timothy fairs talks about the importance of amateur astronomy from "seeing in the dark." book tv prime time on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: well, on your screen is professor lara brown who is the author of this book, "jockeying for the american presidency." we're going to be talking about presidential campaigns and elections and congressional campaigns and elections and scandals. professor brown, 44 men have sebbed as president of the united states. do they have anything in common? is there one commonality among

all 44? guest: well, that's exactly what i set out to find. i tend to think about presidents as being a group of winners. they all essentially made it through the election process. and it's a difficult process to and it's a difficult process to say the least. of course, you know, there are a few who inheritted the chair. but they are not the norm. and the vast majority are what i call oper tunists. they are people who perceive and exploit opportunities in the environment and turn those to their favor, and it helps them win. host: all 44 have been oper tunists? guest: no. about 75%. host: let's start with who wasn't an oper tunist. guest: madison was not. when you look at these folks, the people who haven't been considered oper tunists tended to get there because they were vice president or it was

typical in the election that you could see that they would win. so for example, james blew cannon is not an oper tunist, and when you understand his election, it makes sense, because free monte and -- split that vote, which helped to elect blew cannon. host: how about gerald ford? guest: yes. one of the things you see is many of these individuals were not oper tunists. they end up having long tenure ins one institution or another. and they tend not to have sort of a variety of political jobs across the spectrum, and over their careers. host: why was james madison not an oper tunist? guest: i think it was because of the length of their service. if you look at how i measure oper tune i678, i look at it in breadth of experience over

depth of experience. essentially if you've spent many, many, many years and not had that many different positions, you're disadvantaged. and from an intuitive level, why i think that makes sense, the more positions you've served in, the more views of politics you have gained, then the more likely you are to find and see the opportunities as they come. host: you open with james k. polk. why? guest: i do. because i think he is the quintessential candidate people dismiss as having been this dark horse that some how he just lucked into a nomination, and by golly, he ended up as president, and it was all owing to his party. and i just didn't buy that story. there are so many individuals who would love to have their party pick them. so the real question in my mind

was how does a party actually select? and how does a person maneuver themselves into a place where they become the cloice of their party? host: one of your last chapters was the oper tunism of as prance is about loseers. why was henry -- never elected president of the united states? guest: i think because henry clay had a difficult time learning. when i'm looking at this experience issue, what i'm trying to get at is how much trying to get at is how much are these individuals learning throughout their political career? i think we all have run into people who we know who have a lot of experience and haven't learned much over their life from their experiences? and i think unfortunately henry clay ends up being that person. he's very much the same person

he was when he sort of first became speaker of the house. that he was leitner his life as he's running in 1844 and even making another attempt in 1848. all of his losses teach him lessons that then he goes on to use to great effect later. host: political oper tunist? guest: yes. host: yoo license is s. grant? guest: he is considered one of the highest oper tunists and because of that he gets thrown out, because he really didn't have any political experience before he became president. so is his breath number, the number of positions he eserved end up way outside the norm. host: harry trueman. guest: trueman is one of those

interesting things. as i recall, i would have to go back and look at my data. but as i recall he is actually an oper tunist, but it's because he served sort of short term in many of his underlying positions. host: barack obama. guest: he is officially not. but there was one from the 2008 election that actually had one of the highest scores. certainly higher than president clinton. host: why? guest: because he had run for more offices in a short period of time, where as senator clinton, at the time i counted her first lady experience as essentially one position, eight years. so that essentially disadvantages her. host: with barack obama, did he

have a sense of the environment at the time? i mean, did he take advantage of that? guest: our old oper tunist, those who won the presidency prior to the modern era. prior to the -- their oper tunism scores are made up of very real depth and breadth. but now they are much shorter. so my favorite example is george w. bush had basically run or served in three different offices and served a total of six years when he went into the presidency. when you compare that to thomas jefferson, i recall 19 positions he had run or served for in those years, so close to

a .5 oper tunism score. but i would argue that thomas jefferson probably would have beaten george w. bush in a heartbeat. host: well, the numbers are up on the screen. we're talking campaign elections and we're going to talk with lara a little bit about congress. the numbers are on the screen. you can send us a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj or an email at journal@c-span.org. those are all our addresses. allow 30 days between your calls, please. when it comes electing members of congress, do voters have short-term memory? guest: no. i think really what happens is the electoral cycle works in such a way that it ends up

protecting incumbents. so incumbent bentz with scandals tend to get re-elected. and all my work on scandals show 2/3 that do decide to run, win. while initially this makes it sound like voters don't really care about character or scandals don't bother them, when you're asked to investigate it, the problem is primary elections are where voters vote on character and so unless an incumbent gates strong challenge in a primary, given the number of seats in a juryy mandatoriered district, it's unlikely they will lose an election. host: well, give us a couple current so called scandals going on in congress and how you think they'll fare. >> well, rangel from new york, he doesn't seem to want to resign or retire.

there's many individuals who have called for that. he has clearly some financial-type scandals, and he's really having the most kind of challenging primary he's ever had and yet, it's highly unlikely any of these other challengers will actually knock him off in the prirle. and he has for the last decade been winning his district by on average about 90% of the vote. so it doesn't matter if he loses 30% of the vote because of the candle, he'll still win. so. host: his primary, september 14, tuesday, september 14. adam clayton pile his challenger, the grandson of the man charlie rangel defeated of course. does he stand a chance? >> no. yonks. i mean, part of -- i don't think so. i mean, part ofs the because there's a couple other primary races, too, and things you see happen in these primaries, the

multiple challengeers if there are multiple challengeers, the multiple challengeers eat up the vote that's willing to vote against the incumbent. so if there are 40% who say let's get rangel out. they'll distribute their votes across the three challengeers. host: maxine waters? guest: another that's very guest: another that's very likely to be re-elected. her primary has will ever been and on average won 80% of the vote in this decade. and as far as i know, she doesn't really have any challenger to be heard from or seen. so again, the calculus of the member is if i'm going to win, why would i retire or resign? and the calculus for many strategic challengeers who might want to take them on, they take a look at the district and say i can't win no matter what, so why should i try? host: why was mark foley, who

had a scandal in september, why did he drop out of congress and drop out of the race. could he have won? you say 2/3 of the members that have scandal or are tainted get re-elected? >> yes. one of the things that is interesting about this. some of those with the more severe scandals or kind of scanned also this garner a great deal of attention like mark foley, like eric mossa, they do tend to essentially say i'm not even going to try this, because i'm sure somebody is going to come after me. and in addition to that. in addition to that, i think you do see underlying those dynamics, they have more competitive districts. tom delay and -- both ran for the primary and won their primaries. and then they took a look at their general election elek trats and realized they might

have a tough time, and their republican party was very upset with them for continuing to do this, because then it might translate to a november loss. >> lara brown, you differentiate between democratic scandals and republican scandals. >> i do. guest: part of this has to do with the fact that i believe democratic voters have different expectations of their members than republican members. and this is where the charge of hypocrisy becomes, i think much more problem atic for individuals who have had scandals. democrats are reportedly there to help poor people, and to, you know barack obama said famously, 13r5ed the wealth. that ends -- spread the wealth. that ends up turning into that ends up turning into getting them into more trouble when it comes time to a scandal with monetary intact. the reverse is true for republicans. stand on family values, when

they have a scandal with morality, they'll get in more trouble. >> -- host: our guest is lara brown, author of "jockeying for the american presidency." he newest book. new orleans, frank, independent line. you're on. caller: how are you doing? i'd just like to make the comment. i'm kind of an amateur history buff. and i see very little differences going back to rome to today. and anywhere between, how politics are run. and if we don't get around to really fixing what's wrong with america, like the debt we owe foreign countries, and as long as as -- it's american people, it's the foreign country that is has the rope around our neck.

host: professor brown, any accident in guest: yes. one of the things i think is interesting is there's a interesting is there's a comment and understanding that politics is sort of the way it's always been, and i think that's right. i think we get into trouble when we think that there was an era where presidential candidates or presidents were some how less ambitious or less self-interested or less partisan than they are today. we have seen them, and i think my study shows they have always been inordinate liam bishes individuals. host: loretta on our democratic line. has it been 30 days since we talked to you? caller: yes it has. i'm really fascinated with her book. i like it. and i'm going to pick it up. i have three issues that i wanted to speak on. wanted to speak on. the first is the scandal part. republicans and the scandal

part. that's fine. that's ok. they always save tidbits twaud the end of a campaign, and they spring it on you. but the republicans have angered blacks, latinos, gays, now the muslims all on racism and women over abortion. so based on my crystal ball. the republicans will not win and not take over any majority in the house or senate, and the other issue is the outsourcing bill where the democrats have brought it up on the floor a couple of times, and the republicans keep voting no to keep outsourcing our jobs, and a lot of these republican callers are calling in about the job situation. and they don't know that the republicans are voteing to keep outsourcing our jobs. host: loretta, last point? caller: the tea party arrest aspect.

they are so -- the tea party as epect. they are talking about amendment rights, bringing firearms to rallies, and the glen beck wannabe preacher he wants to join, i wish i could join your paper, because i would love to write. because looking at this from the outside, it's kind of comeical because i think all the media people are looking at things from their vanityage point, they don't get to see it point, they don't get to see it like we do. host: all right. loretta, we'll talk to you again 30 days. we brought up -- she brought up some very interesting things. guest: yes. let me start with the idea that certainly there's been great partisan betrayal and huge dialogue on whether or not racism has been, you know, part of its dialogue and part of -- that's going on.

i do think that there are legitimate concerns about how race is discussed in the public sphere. but with that said, i also think it's important to understand that the tea party movement is not -- i don't think surprising. i think many people seem to believe thats the surprising. s the unusual. or it's nothing nothing to be concerned with. i think when you actually look deeper, from my perspective many, of these people were probably pro- -- per rote voters and agreed with the issue ross perreault brought up then agreed with newt gingrich and when president obama was a sort of big government republican, in 2005 and 2006, i think they ended up leaving and

dropping out, and now they are back. so from my perspective, this is not surprising. and i see it to be very much the flip side of the anti-war movement. the cindy she hans that were active and engaged during the 2005-2006 period. how she also predicted. her crystal ball said democrats will retain the house of representatives and the senate. what does your crystal ball say? guest: mine is more closely aligned with charlie cook and larry saveltose which is what we're looking at is a very large wave where there's a great deal 06 -- deal of voter re-sent maintenance and anger and i think disgust with both parties. one of the interesting things is outparties don't usually get blamed when the in party is sort of there. so there's been a lot of comments about whether or not,

you know, republicans are putting up good candidates. whether these tea party candidates will be able to effectively challenge the democrats. i think really when you look back in history, when you have one of these "throw out the bums" elections, it's quite indiscriminate and the name you recognize is the name you don't want. host: i'm going back to the short-term memory thing. ohio voted for president obama. just saw a recent poll that said if they could vote begin, 42% barack obama or 0 -- 50%-plus, bush. do we turn on our politicians? guest: i believe there are some that don't have strong political leanings but strong ideological beliefs, and much of that has to do with -- there are times when our country has

been happy. usually those times are when say president reagan was actually negotiating with tip o'neal in the house when president clinton was negotiating with speaker gingrich. when the compromises were coming, you didn't see as much anxious -- as much angst. but when you saw this manyal negotiating from their ideological median point, the country gets tired of that. host: betheseday, maryland. caller: my question relates to the oper tunism concept and how it relates overtime. i realize you're using it to explain individual mote i was for individual actors and i wonder if you're running the risk of modern oper tunism distorting our view for those of the past. to be called an oper tunist

today suggests perhaps you're not truly passionately committed to a certain set of quds and that rather you're more of a careerist. and that the motives for entering politics as a career are somewhat different from 2010 than it would have been in 18 10. host: so you're saying the word of oper tunist is a negative slur? caller: in today's language. guest: thank you for that question. that's actually exactly why i use this word. one of the things that's very interesting. ened the book does start with a quote by wood drove wilson that says oper tunism should not be said as though it were a slur. in fact, most politicians are looking under a majority.

he said i've never known any politician looking for a minority. i think he's right. they have 20 work with the op opportunities that are in the environment. and while there's a negative and while there's a negative con me toation to it, when we think about opportunity, generally, we typically believe people who do not take advantage of fortuitous circumstances are actually rather foolish. in regards to polk in my introduction, where i say that should he have not tried to actually become president when martin van buren sort of stepped on the wrong side of the texas annexation issue? yes, he exploited his opportunities. he was an oper tunist by all accounts. was he negative for doing that? i'm not so sure. caller: hello. fascinating topic. and i think i'm going to run out and buy this book.

[laughter] caller: one question i have for professor brown. is there a chapter in there on williams jennings bryant, who ran for the presidency three times and lost? and also i read that he may be the one 19th century politician who may be most relevant to the issues we're facing today, and i wonder if he were running today, first of all, which party would he be running with? and also would the same issues apply today? apply today? guest: fantastic question. thank you for that. i do have a chapter on william mcinly, so the case study on william mckinley -- williams generalings bryant in some ways, like henry clay, seems not to necessarily learn from his behavior over the course of his blil political career. wheanched you look at this

actual election and you look at how brian campaigned, he really gave away the northeast. which ha had been, actually, new york had been fundamental to groveral cleveland being the only democrat actually elected for about a 60-year period of time. and had williams jennings bryant not given up on new york and those sort of sound, gold new yorkers, then he would have perhaps been able to carry this presidency. host: at the beginning of this program, we asked our viewers regarding the "vanity fair" issue that came out with sarah palin, what's our fascination with sarah palin? guest: i think our fascination right now is really related to this idea of outsiders. i mentioned in the book that i i mentioned in the book that i think when you look over time at all of these. you see that they are competing

to become different ideals at different moments in time. our modern system has an ideal that says you should be essentially an outsider. an ideological leader. and somebody who essentially overtakes your party. so interestingly enough, this really, from my perspective, in the republican party, started with reagan. and i think that's where you see sarah palin trying to claim that same kind of mantle. host: we're talking with professor lara brown, author of "jockeying for the american presidency." about campaigns and elections. your calls. up networks, a democrat from florida. florida. hi. . .

whether you look can't all of the discussion about impeaching -- look at all the discussion about impeaching bush during his presidency, i think that is valid. and then you're actually look at the fact that they did impede president clinton. of course, they did not remove him from office. one of the things that you have seen is as the country is as incredibly competitive as it is, if we look down the line and say, we are still the country we were in 2000, which is essentially a 50/50 nation, and from there, things going back and forth, usually, the party in power not only has more opportunity for scandal, but also more opportunities for muckraking.

host: i want to get to specifics here. essentially, democrats are allowed the sex scandals, republicans are allowed money scandals. caller: yeah, that is what i've found in all my years of research. typically, democrats have essentially four given morality- type scandal and republicans have been essentially tossed from office, especially in the primaries, individuals who were engaged in those things. host: like william jefferson with the money scandal -- caller: he was all right. -- guest: he was all right. i have a colleague and we were

engaging in scandals in this decade. we both agreed that things have changed in the last 10 years and clinton's impeachment. there is a difference in how the party can be heard about these individuals candles and how congress has been perceived as much more corrupt. there is much more pressure to resign. a caller from to massachusetts. caller: will deliver clinton ever run from -- hillary clinton ever run again and will patrick ever return? host: patrick kennedy. guest: certainly, the kennedys have had long, illustrious

careers, some of them at the presidential level, senatorial level and congressional level. i'm not sure where they're headed. with regard to hillary clinton, she is certainly well positioned were she to run. host: in a primary against barack obama in 2012. guest: i do not think she would take on because she is not the person who would be well- positioned in a primary. the person who would be would be former gov. howard dean, who could do sort of what ted kennedy did with jimmy carter. host: because of the focus on economic and domestic issues? guest: and also because he was a doctor and he probably should have been put in charge of health care with this administration. if they wanted to explain to the progressive side of the

party that there were only a certain policy prescriptions that they were able to get. in other words, i think it in other words, i think it actually chose the wrong messenger to be secretary of health and human services. governor sebelius was a fantastic governor of kansas, but she was also a conservative democrat. she is probably not the person to be talking to what is referred to as the professional left. howard dean would have been a much more effective messenger. i also think that given that he was ousted from the dmz, -- the was ousted from the dmz, -- the dnc, there are many progressives in the democratic party that welcome his return as a true progress of. host: could another republican in 2008 have given barack obama a better run for his money? guest: here is one thing that is interesting about that election, if you look at the data, that

election is actually fairly close until about september 15. and when lehman brothers goes bankrupt and the economy falls precipitously off the cliff, you have the american public saying we have had enough of the republican party. we do not care who the messenger is. we are done. host: good morning in colorado. caller: i was wondering if you caller: i was wondering if you have any background on of the speaker of the house in the 1930's. guest: yes, thank you, and my book does. it i would discusses james g.

blaine and grover cleveland and the maneuvering early in the party. there was a desire to have someone that was more progressive, not as tied to the bosses, and not perceived as corrupt. which is hard -- to a and it is fascinating about this time. if we, in many ways, are repeating the late 1870's, 1880's europe in their meanness to theach other and the voters o discuss an accurate that led to -- and the voters getting disgusted. that led to a change and things becoming more progressive.

host: i just want to show this. you talk about the early party time, but strong party time, and the modern party time, but you end it all in 2004. are we still in the modern party era? guest: we may actually be entering a post-modern party time. the heiress change, from my perspective, when the strategies of the candidates change and the opportunity of the parties change. one of the things that is fascinating about the modern party time up to 2004 and now

this time in 2008, you very much see that changing the rules of the game is part of the nomination process. prior to the mcgovern/frazier, commission, that was not the norm. parties did not change their denominational is every single year. now they seem to do that. and also change the calendar, which is part of the frantic part of the process. but the two parties are very competitive when the south switched from being democratic to republican and the northeast switched from being republican to democrat. the airhn, you're on with lara brown. caller: i would like to get your thoughts on the only elected president that we have that was impeached. also, did you serve in government during the clinton administration?

guest: yes, i did. i worked in the department of education. i was in charge of corporate art reach. i was involved in the democratic side of politics in graduate school. it was how i paid for my graduate education. once i finished my ph.d. i slowly transitioned out of party politics and now i am really an analyst. host: next call for professor brown comes from georgia. james, a democrat. caller: i think this lady is doing a great job. i disagree about this thing about bill clinton and obama. bill clinton was tried to be in a speech to -- if impeached for something that is not impeachable. george bush did something that was very much impeachable, but

he is not a bad guy. the difference i see is that george bush got away with so much. host: what did he get away with? caller: he committed treason. he lied about the war. and he makes up an excuse of, well, this is the information that i've got. if you have done something, admit it. if he had admitted to it, maybe that would be different. the point is, he lied about the war. he went over there and want to control petroleum. and that is another story. host: lara brown? guest: you are bringing up one of the more interesting things in our history, and that is, of impeachment is a terribly political. it is not clear-cut. typically, it has to do with what is in the environment. you can look back at the impeachment process with andrew johnson and what you saw were that the radical republicans in

congress for extremely upset with his -- with what they perceived as him being soft on the south. host: didn't he kind of put himself therefore by not defending himself, or being arrogant toward congress? guest: absolutely. and certainly, at that creative time, congress expected much more deference than they do today. the congress constantly gets rolled by the president today. host: why has that changed? guest: 4 lot of reasons. as the government -- for a lot of reasons. as the government has expanded, the president has gained more power. the president is the chief executive and that means we go from having a few agencies to many agencies. the more agencies they have, the larger the budgets are and the the powerfu accrues to

executive branch. executive branch. the 1995 budget debate is a classic example of that. and it is also why of speaker policy toward impeachment off the table even before the 2006 election. she, i believe, was playing for the long term. she wanted to try to win the presidency in 2008 from a democratic party perspective and she felt that if they engaged in an impeachment proceeding against bush during the 2007-08 time frame, soph it would only -- it would only marred their chance for the presidency. host: is written recently that it was a bad political strategy to run against george borscht in

2010, correct? guest: very true. elections are about the future and it is difficult to keep looking back. voters feel like, yes, and we punished george bush in 2008. we very clearly did that. we made sure his party did not get into office and reelected a bunch of democrats and we elected president barack obama. from their perspective, they have completed their task. now the question is, what do we do about where they are -- where we are? it is still not fixed. host: you never hear beingican speech about the party of republican and -- being the party of lincoln and reagan. guest: i actually wrote a paper or about how president clinton

used presidential exemplars in his speeches. if you look at how he name drops over time, he begins by almost citing thomas jefferson and franklin roosevelt. he and his presidency are almost always citing abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt. he moves from symbolically talking about two democrats, who were considered the greatest, to the republicans that were considered the great. and he was at that time working with a republican congress. it was no surprise that he was trying to bridge that gap. and i think you can see when you hear the republicans speaking about lincoln and teddy roosevelt, they are trying to explain, we are a progressive party, even advanced our conservatism. -- even amidst our conservatism. host: last call from wisconsin.

caller: i am a conservative person. i do not belong to the democratic party or the republican party or the tea party. but i'm very angry about what is happening with the money in this country. so many people that have good paying jobs, the jobs have been laid off. people do not get the same amount of money. and we are going into debt so far over our head. i do not know how long is going to take for this country to recover. the rich do not pay taxes. the poor do not pay taxes. the middle class pays the taxes and we are getting hit every day. guest: i think you are expressing the sentiment that is out there among many, many people right now. let me say, i do think that the democrats made a very serious judge mccall -- a judgment call

when it came to focusing on health care. i happen to believe that most americans, when they looked at where this economy was heading, said to themselves, if i lose my job and then my house is foreclosed upon, it does not matter whether or not i can go to the doctor. and i think the priority list is very important and i think the democrats, because of their desire to pass health care because it has so long been on the agenda, pushed ahead of the and the spending is part of that. host: professor laura brown has been our guest. thank you for being on the "washington journal." we will be talking about polling with an emory university professor. >> at 9:18 a.m. here in washington, here are some of the headlines.

the unemployment rate did rise in august for the first time in four months. as weak hiring by private and lawyers was not enough to keep pace with the number of people looking for work. the labor department just a little while ago reports the jobless rate for august rose to 9.6% from 9.5% in july. president obama is expected to have comments on this report, and live coverage of the president's remarks at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span television and radio. the u.s. agriculture department employees worked full-time at two iowa farms at the center of the salmonella outbreak and a massive recall. two former workers of those farms to say the government employees ignored complaints about conditions at those sites. a state department spokesperson said those employees were response before grading eggs and nad response for health problems. problems. another show of force against

north korea through exercises. if they are set to run sunday through thursday of the west coast. there will be the second in a series of joint maneuvers in response to the deadly sinking of a south korean warships in march. and finally, fidel castro on his military fatigues for the first time since stepping down as president four years ago. wearing the familiar cat and uniform as he gave a speech this morning in how men have. -- in havana. there is speculation that he is seeking a larger role again in politics after turning over power to his brother, role. those are some hola headlines -- some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> sunday, historian and a

pulitzer prize winner gordon wood on "book tv" in debt. -- in-depth. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have a washington journal summer series of electoral politics. all week long we have been looking at various issues when it comes to electoral politics. on monday we looked at the 2010 house and senate races. on tuesday, with a dead political advertisements and their impact on politics. the wednesday with a debt independent party groups and their world -- we looked at independent party goods and their role. today we will be looking at polling, election year pulling and dela torre polling. our guest is alan abramowitz, a

professor of who happens to be in washington for the american political science association meeting. thank you for joining me on the "washington journal" professor. describe polling. describe polling. guest: i would describe it as the combination of science and art. there is certainly a scientific element to it when it comes to sampling and the statistical basis of it, but there is also an art to it. the art involves questions like, "how do you select likely voters," "how you analyze the data," and "with kind of questions you ask." host: can you run with our polling? -- without polling? guest: almost all of the

campaigns are doing extensive polling, and they want to know what the electorate is thinking, what their concerns are and their views are on the candidates. so, they can hear their messages toward the opinions of the voters. host: when it comes to presidential polling, how specific does it get? if barack obama and john mccain were doing polls, how specific did they get? guest: very specific in determining the strength and weaknesses of the candidates. they want to know how the voters perceive obama and mccain as well as how they perceive the issues. they're getting into some very specific questions. they will be asking questions about recent issues, voters perception of those, any allegations that have been made about candidates mistakes, witnesses and so on.

host: the pure research center, the form on public live did a public call and they talked about president obama's religion. that compared 2009 to 2010 and fewer people consider him to be a christian today than they did a a year ago. in fact off many think he is muslim. -- in fact, many people think he is muslim. guest: and think it is a result of a couple of things. at one, generally, people's opinions of the president have become more negative over time. his approval rating has dropped from the mid-60's when the first to office to the lower 40's now. and i think people are more

susceptible to leaving a negative rumors out there because the majority of the american populations attitude about muslims is pretty negative. and generally, he does not talk about his religious beliefs. you do not see a lot of pictures of him out there attending religious services and displaying his christian beliefs. guest: -- host: wended political polling in this country begin? guest: there are poles of all sorts that going -- and going back to the 19th century, but really, what we consider the birth of the modern public opinion poll goes back to the 1930's with people like george gallup senior, al gore roper -- they were the ones who pioneered this. at that time, the surveys had to be done in person.

you could not do telephone polling because far too many people did not have telephones. and if you tried to do telephone polling, you would have gotten a very biased sample of the public. it had to be done in person. they would use a technique ta pulling. they would gather people in terms of age, sex, race and so on in order to get a sample of the voting age population. and it worked pretty well for the most part. but there were some problems and, of course, in 1948, the polls that were of there, particularly the gallup poll, missed the election. they predicted that you would defeat dreman. and -- dewey -- truman.

both of the public polls and academic polls went to sampling were the individuals do not select the individuals to be interviewed. it is done by a random process. and how you do it depends on the population you are trying to survey. is different if it is a small community versus the nation. but the idea is the the interviewers cannot have freedom in selecting the individuals. of course, in recent years, we have seen a big shift toward a telephone calling in almost nobody does personal interviews anymore. host: speaking of telephone polling, are we entering an era where more cellphone is that home phones -- more cellphone home phones, and are you

bridge that? guest: i think i saw something really worth 25% do not have home phones. they tend to be disproportionately under people and minorities. -- younger people and minorities. that presents a challenge because you have to make up for it somehow to correct that imbalance. some of the organization's are actually calling cell phones, which is challenging. people get a call on their cell phone and they are not necessarily in a position to history survey. they have to actually make sure the person is not driving. -- to answer a survey. they have to actually make sure the person is not driving. but there is a way to try to catch that part of the voting population.

host: our guest is alan abramowitz, a political science professor. and we are looking at polling. the numbers have been on the screen,/political affiliation. we have set aside a fourth line because we get so many people calling in saying, i have never been called, i have never been called. if you have been polled, here is the number for you. it just so happens that we have three major news stories that are all about polls that have been taken. i would like you to give us a snapshot analysis of these polls, if you would. this is from "usa today" -- party in power could be in peril. they have a chart here. suppose that after the november elections most of the present members of congress are replaced

with a new members. would it change, was for the better or worse? that is how the question was phrased. better, 75%. worse, 14%. this was done by "usa today" gallup. guest: i think this tells us that people are pretty dissatisfied with the status quo. and that is largely economically -- largely reflective of the economic conditions we are facing. and that does not mean we are going to see anything like that percentage of income and is replaced in the election. in fact, we predict the from past experience, the overwhelming majority of incumbents will be reelected. host: even if the house or senate switches hands. guest: if they switch hands.

guest: if they switch hands. about 90% of the house seats have incumbents running in them. if we will probably see about 90% of the incumbents reelected. we're likely to see a much lower rate of reelection for democrats than republicans this year. host: this might be a little more telling than that question. in 1934, 44% of the people polled said they were going to vote for the party in power, which was the democrats. 47% planned to vote against the party in power. now, come to 2010, 43% voting for the party in power, 49% for the party not in power. guest: right, and that is one of many poles we have seen in recent weeks that have shown republicans holding an advantage on the so-called

generic ballot. this is a question where people are asked, more less, if the election were held today, would you be voting for the democratic or republican candidate for your district. most of those have been showing republicans with a lead, ranging from a small lead up to 10 points in one recent poll. right now, people are very discontented and generally they tend to take that discontent out on the party in power. we will see in november. host: the front page of the "new york times" and then we will get to calls. there is a chart on the inside and it shows president obama's job approval rating among people

born in 1981 or later is still higher, but it is going down. if you are identified as a as democrats. -- fewer are identified as the democrats. guest: some of the house to do with the fact that in 2008, if we are taking that as our baseline, was a very good year for democrats. it is always a question of what you are comparing the current situation to. in 2002, democrats had their biggest advantage in party and vacation in the number of polls -- party identification in a number of polls than they had in years. but the differences are generally still consistent with the differences that we saw in 2008. that is, younger people are more democratic and supportive of the president and older voters. if the same thing is true if we break it down by race and education and other characteristics. host: professor abramowitz is the album berkeley professor.

and who was album barkley? guest: he was governor of kentucky and then he was vice- president under truman. he did not actually graduated from emory university, but he did attend. that is where it comes from. i'm proud to have that title. host: what is his best known statement? ofst: i'm trying to think one, but i'm not sure. host: he was under fdr? guest: i think he was one of the leaders in the senate under fdr. host: first calls for alan abramowitz, good morning. caller: i was calling to get your take on the lam line and cellphone deal, but you guys got me on that one.

so, i have another question about what you think about the way they handled the last elections where the media had made a grave error in estimation in their polling. do you recall that a a while back? guest: their estimation of support for the presidential candidates? caller: no, the polling was off. they miss the mark on where they were supposed to be as the turn out. guest: actually, if you look at the polls leading up to the 2008 presidential election, on the whole, the polls were pretty accurate. in other words, almost all the polls showed obama leading. the margin varied of it, as you would expect, but the average in the days right before the election was pretty close to the actual margin, which i think was

around six to seven. and they caught the fact that it was going to be a high turnout election. estimating turn out is difficult in figuring out who the likely voters are. it is difficult, especially in an off-year election where the turnout is very low. but i think by and large they did very well in 2008. host: jim on our independent line in new hampshire has been polled. tell us your experience. caller: c-span is just getting better and better, including new. keep up the good work. it was an automatic poll, but fairly extensive. about the senatorial candidates on both. host: jim, you called it an

automatic call it? caller: yes. but it when broader than that and was more extensive than i would have expected. we have a poster from the university of new hampshire come to our town recently and give an entertaining history of the new ethnic -- the new hampshire primary. and he mentioned that a a sort of poll was used as a garbage. i wonder if the professor had any comments. guest: that poll is sometimes described as a robo-dial poll. it is a recorded voice and your answer are pushing buttons on your phone. rasmussen is probably the best known for organization that uses the technique, but there are quite a few others.

this has become a very popular methodology because it is relatively inexpensive. and it is possible to do a lot of calls. a lot of the traditional pollsters have questions about this technique. the response rate tends to be fairly low. a lot of people, you might imagine, just hang out. also, errors in the process of pushing the button can produce some peculiar results. many of these polls, including rasmussen, simply talk to the first person that answers the phone. they do not to call back. they do all the interviews in a single evening. that certainly goes against the traditional rules of public opinion polling. however, by and large, the robo- dial pollsters have done fairly

well. they are fairly accurate. host: and it is definitely cheaper. guest: yes, it is, because you do not have interviewers. you do not even have a call center. most of these will not call itself phones. they are trying to compensate for that by waiting barrett samples by trying to -- by weighting their samples are trying to create questions that appeal to different demographics. their results tend to be a bit more favorable toward republicans than many of the other polling organizations. they may be right. we will have to wait and see how housing turns out in november. -- see how things turn out in november.

host: i cannot see without my glasses. 1000 and some poll by usa today gallop. what would that cost? guest: the gallup poll is still using live interviewers. those costs are being distributed across all of the polls. if you wanted to have a poll done and you're going to commission a polling organization to do interviews by you, let's say, 1000 telephone, you would pay anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 up to $50,000 for the poll. host: so, presidential, we are talking millions, right? guest: and actually, they are pulling all along. the party committees do polling. the party committees do polling. and of course, the president

has polling done for him right now. host: syracuse, new york, ray on the republican line. caller: good morning. c-span rocks, and thank you. the comment by the professor nicely illustrates a potential problem with pulling accuracy. the professor called for claimed as a fact that obama is a christian. that, presumably, is his opinion. to show us as fact he would have to have a valid definition and then show credible evidence that obama meets the definition, which to my understanding, i have not seen anything along those lines. guest: i do not know quite how to respond to that. i think there is overwhelming evidence that obama is a christian. he has described himself as a christian. he has been a member of

christian churches. host: and further, he has written about it. guest: absolutely, there is no credible evidence that i have seen that he is anything other than a christian. host: id in rating gap, ga., has been cold. been cold. caller: i have been polled , i think, twice. one was what you were talking about before. host: did you answer it? caller: i got most of the way through and it seemed to me that the questions were somewhat misleading. host: did you hang out at that point? -- hang up at that point? caller: unfortunately, yes. host: before you go on, but me ask, would that account? guest: not clear. generally, if a person has gone through most of the interview,

they will still use that part. it is not unusual for people to cut off the interview just because they do not like the questions or have to go do something else. host: all right, ivy, go ahead. caller: i was verbally questioned about the senate races coming up in georgia. this was a few years ago. this one started off as very bipartisan, but then as i started to get a little more into it it was almost like, do you like the wife beater or view like our candidates? like our candidates? -- do you like our candidate ? i want them to say something about the person that did not seem to be covered in their options. guest: could be a case of what is sometimes called push polling.

those are not really polls at all. very form of political advertising or campaign persuasion -- they are a form of political advertising or campaign persuasion that is disguised as a poll. if it is really frowned on in the polling industry because it gives a bad name to all polls. those who do these fraudulent polls, what they're really trying to do is spread negative information about the opposing candidates. they're calling all likely voters, not a sample, and is trying to give a continuing information about the opposing candidates. host: if gallup is doing a poll and they are hired by the incumbent president. do they have to say -- the incumbent president, do they have to say, this is gallup and we have been hired by president ex to do a poll?

guest: generally, they will not tell you that. they do not want to reveal who they are working for. in fact, they will be out of their way to try to conceal that. they do not want to tell you who they're working for because, of course, that could buy as the results. if you know you are insane polled by -- if you know you are being polled by a poll that is being done by a particular candidate, you could not answer the poll because you do not like that candidates. that would be a bad approach. even though it may seem like they are not being honest with people. host: philadelphia, go ahead. caller: professor abramowitz, your representation -- your reputation precedes you. guest: thank you. caller: i have two questions.

the first is about my home state senator a race in terms of polling. -- senatorial race in terms of polling. seems like each polling organization is giving an edge to each candidate. is this indicative of a close race or is this just the polling? and my second question is, in comparison to 1994 when president clinton had been trying to enact health care legislation and had just sent troops to bosnia, i believe, does that throw any electoral power where president obama has just sent more troops to afghanistan and has passed legislation, does this mean we will see a sweep of congress?

guest: where are you studying? caller: university of pennsylvania and i made double major. host: where did you grow up? caller: philadelphia. guest: that is certainly one of the more competitive races this year. there are quite a few seats in play. is it democratic seat since arlen specter, the previous incumbent, had switched parties. it is one that republicans are hoping to pick up. it is not surprising to have some polls showing one candidate ahead and other polls showing the other candidates ahead. most of the polls in pennsylvania, though, in recent weeks have had to me with a modest lead over sestak. -- toomey with a modest lead over sestak.

now, with the question about -- i'm blanking. host: that is always the point with -- the problem with the two-part questions and i was not writing it down. let's move on. next caller from texas. caller: the man that called earlier, he has no right to ask what president obama's religion is. he is not a judge. host: you said you have been cold? tell us your experience. -- you have been polled? tell us your experience. caller: he is no example of a christian either. one: i'm going to give you

more chance. let's stay on topic. caller: i would not vote republican for the world. host: how did you know it was a republican poll. if the caller: does all the questions were leading in that -- caller: because all the questions were leading in that direction. host: what did you tell him? caller: no, no. and the worst part is that they go under the guise of christ. host: she said that she used to be republican could that have been why she was on the list? been why she was on the list? guest: it could be , not so much for calling, but to mobilize their voters. to turn people out on election

day, they will be contacting their people. in georgia, for example, they go by their primary voting history. if you have considered -- consistently voted in the republican primary, the assumption is that you are probably republican. it will call you to get you out to vote. to vote. host: as 2010 progresses, there will be a poll every other day by news organizations saying, you know, these are the numbers for congress. two things -- are the same people going to be called? how do they pick the people that will be called? and, when you see those polls, what do you look at? guest: we will certainly see a lot of polls, both in individual senate races and governor's races, even some national house

races. my attitude toward these things, i tend to try to follow the average because the polls will douse around quite a bit. there is quite a bit of -- will bounce around quite a bit. there's quite a bit of variation from pole to pole. -- from poll to poll. one of the biggest problems that you have in pre-election polling, and a midterm elections especially where if turnout is fairly low, is trying to fairly low, is trying to determine who is going to likely show up. degeneres asians have different ways of doing that and depending on how you do that -- different organizations have different ways of doing that and putting on how you do that you see different results. in some cases we see that

republicans are more motivated to turn out. host: are you looking at the numbers? guest: if you organizations like rasmussen have been pulling likely voters all along. adults will start in october. one wants to be primarily focused on the likely voters once that information is available because they can tend to run a few points more republican in general than registered voters do. this year, that could be even more true if, in fact, republican voters are more energized to turn out. host: if you have been polled, give us a call. richard in missouri. we have about eight minutes left. caller: this polling, i think it has a tendency to influence the

elections. a lot of people do not watch the news and they want to vote for a winner, so they vote for whoever is doing the best. guest: that is a great question. it is something that you hear frequently. a lot of people suspect that a lot of people suspect that polling can themselves influence people's opinions. however, there's a lot of study about this and there is very little evidence that polls actually do influence public opinion. it could actually have the opposite effect, an underdog effect. by and large, i think the evidence generally shows the polls do not have any systematic influence on people's opinions. people will not change their opinion or the influence just on the basis of the poll.

host: a new poll is out by 60 minutes and the vanity fair and is about sarah palin and her effectiveness as a leader. would she be ineffective president, 26% said yes. the 59% said she would be an effective president. when you see that, with that hurt her fund raising. guest: it could if she actually runs for the republican nomination. sarah palin is certainly a very polarizing figure. you find that generally, republicans tend to have a very favorable opinion of her and by large, democrats have a pretty unfavorable opinion of her. but there are also questions about her ability to serve as president. is she prepared? the she have the experience, the knowledge?

that could be a problem for work, but she has a very dedicated following. if she runs for the republican nomination, i think she will be a formidable candidates. host: washington d.c., we are on host: washington d.c., we are on the phone with alan abramowitz and we are talking about pulling. caller: i was just laughing about the last comment about the sarah palin. my question is just about polling. i will not even weigh in on the sarah palin subject because i think that is all manufactured. i go into the survey methodology of each pole that i hear about. because what i find disturbing is that never in the reporting or in the resulting headlines from the poll view manchin as part of the headline out of the -- do you mentioned as part of the headline out of the 1000 people survey, 42% feel this way

or 455% feel that way. it is always the impression is given that the majority of the americans were cold and these are the results. -- were polled and these are the results. host: you are concerned about the size of the sample. guest: 1000 is actually a pretty big number of this point. most people do 100 in a statewide poll. but actually, you can get a pretty accurate portrait of the opinions of the electorate. the whole basis of public opinion polling is gambling. . -- sample in theory. it is the idea that -- sampling

theory. the idea that you can get a small portion of a population and fairly recon -- represent the overall population has been proven over and over again. even with the problems you have nowadays with cell phones and low response rates. the polls have been done pretty well, by and large. on average, they have done pretty well. host: do you ever go to the website realclearpolitics.com? guest: yes, i do. there are a couple of good websites. that is one. another one is pollster.com. they actually have graphs where they will show the trend in the

state senate races and the presidential races, even the presidential approval. they have all those things and the average them altogether and they have nice trendlines. you can see where things are going. there is another that have a lot of information about public opinion polling. and there're other web sites out there as well. host: mobile, alabama, you have been polled. tell us your experience. caller: i have one the other day and the questions they were asking leading questions. then i asked her if she was -- [unintelligible] i told her i did not like these type of polls because they are trying to leave me into

something i'm going to save. -- trying to lead me into something i'm going to say. i told her, we're going to stop this because i am a democrat and whoever is a democrat in my state, i'm going to vote for them. guest: you are not alone in that opinion. many people vote along party lines. it is kind of unusual in a poll that they would not identify the party of the candidates because polling organizations know that party is a very important consideration to people when they vote. it may be that they wanted to find are your opinions about the individual without having that influenced in some way by the party. but that is merit -- a very meaningful, in my opinion puris